A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

ILDEPHONSUS, Bishop of Toledo.

ILDEPHONSUS, a Monk, and afterwards Abbot of the Monastery of Agali, was elected Bishop of Toledo in 658. which was the 9th year of the Reign of King * 1.1 Recessuinth, * 1.2 and governed that Church nine Years, and two Months. He made a Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers, for a continuation of Isidorus's, to the end whereof Julian, his Successor, added the Catalogue of his Works, after he had made an Encomium upon him, and taken notice of the principal Circumstances of his Life. He hath composed, says he, several Books very well written, and much to be valued. He divided them himself, thus: The first part compre∣hends the following Tracts, A Writing of his own Weakness, by way of a Prosopopoeia; a Tract of the Virgin Mary's perpetual Virginity against three Infidels; a small Tract upon the Proprieties of the three Divine Persons; another Tract containing Reflections upon his daily Actions; another of Reflections upon Sacred Things; a Book of the Knowledge of Bap∣tism; a Treatise of the advancement of the Spiritual Solitariness, which he joined to the first part of his Works. The second comprehends several Letters written to several Persons, and sometimes under different Names, in which there be many large Answers. The third part was made up of Masses, Hymns and Sermons. The fourth contained many small Works in Prose and Verse; among which there be some Epitaphs and Epigrams. He had moreover be∣gun several other Tracts, which he left imperfect.

Of all these Tracts there is none left to us, but that of Mary's perpetual Virginity, where∣in he asserts, against Jovinian, That she kept her Virginity in her bringing forth; Against Elvidius, That she remained a Virgin after she had brought forth Jesus Christ; And against the Jews, That she Conceived without the loss of her Virginity. He enlargeth upon the Myste∣ry of the Incarnation, and the God-head of Christ. This Treatise is full of Devout Considerations, with a Preface to it, containing many Pious Thoughts. The Stile is Sententious and Concise.

Some ascribe moreover to Ildephonsus of Toledo, another Treatise of Mary's perpetual Vir∣ginity, and * 1.3 Twelve Sermons on the Purification, the Birth, and Assumption of the Virgin; but the Stile of these Works, which are not mention'd by Julian, is so different from that of Ildephonsus, that we may be assured they belong to another Author. They are written in a more Dogmatical way, and are full of Citations from the Fathers, and of Reasonings. Nay, and there are found in them some passages of Authors that lived after Ildephonsus, as of S. Bernard, of the Author Of the Commentary upon the Seven Penitential Psalms, which is under the Name of S. Gregory, of Ratram, and Paschasius. This Author Teaches, That * 1.4 the Virgin was

Sanctified in her Mother's Womb, and was Born without Original Sin. He believes, 'Tis upon that account, the Feast of h••r Nativity is kept; but he does not speak of the Concep∣tion. He asserts, That she suffered no Pain in her bringing forth. He says, That Jesus Christ came out of the Virgin by penetrating through her Bowels, after the same manner that he came forth out of the Grave by penetration, and charges the opposite Opinion with Heresie. He affirms, That she committed no Sin in her Life. He commends her highly, and looks up∣on her as the most Excellent of all Creatures. He describes her Assumption in a stately man∣ner; but yet he dares not affirm she ascended into Heaven in Soul and Body; because, tho' that Opinion, says he, be Pious, yet it cannot be affirmed as a certainty, lest we should deli∣ver doubtful Things for unquestionable Truths. Quod licet pium sit credere, a nobis tamen non debet affirmari, ne videamus dubia pro certis recipere. This is what this Author says, whom I believe to be much later than Ildephonsus of Toledo, and to belong to the Ninth Century of the Church. This Opinion is suitable to that of Usuardus, that lived in the same time, who speaking in his Martyrology of the Virgin's Body, says, The Church had rather confess, that she knows not where it is, than teach any thing Apocryphal and Frivolous about it, Plus elegit Sobrietas Ecclesiae cum pietate nescire, quam aliquid frivolum aut Apochryphum do∣cere.

The Works, bearing Ildephonsus's Name, have been Published by Feuardentius, [at Paris in 1576,] and are extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom. 12.] except the Treatise Of Illustri∣ous Men, which was Printed together with those of S. Jerom, Gennadius, and Isidore, [at Ant∣werp in 1639.]

Dacherius hath Published in the first Volume of his Spicilegium some Letters of Ildephonsus of Toledo, of Quiricus, and Idatius, Bishops of Barcelona.

Notes

• * 1.1

  [Recesu∣i••d.]
• * 1.2

  Ildephons. Bishop of Toledo.
• * 1.3

  [Dr. Cave, VI.]
• * 1.4

  [The Virgin Mary was Sanctified in her Mother's Womb, and was Born without Original Sin.] It is very probable that this Work, which is falsly attributed to Ildephonsus in Monsieur Du Pin's Judgment, was forged by an Author of a much later Date, since it was the Constant Opinion of the Church for above 1100 Years after Christ, that the Virgin Mary was not only Born in Original Sin, as all other Women are, but was also guilty of many Actual Sins. Austin imputes to her Original Sin, Virginis caro, e••iamsi de peccati propagine venit, non tamen de peccati propagine concepit, altho' she was Born in Sin, yet she did not Conceive in Sin. And to the same purpose do Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others, speak of her. And in like manner of Actual Sin many of the Fathers in their Comments upon Jo. 2. 3. think her guilty, for it is certain, that our Saviour did Reprove some Fault or Error in her. This Maldonate on John II. part 11. acknow∣ledges, tho' not of their Mind. And indeed the Holy Spirit by her own Mouth gives us an invincible proof of her Sinfulness, inspiring her to Rejoyce in God her Saviour, as standing need of him to save her from her Sins, as well as other Women. But in these last Ages of the Church, the Immoderate Ve∣neration given to the Virgin Mary hath produced an Opinion, that Mary was by a singular and extraordi∣nary Privilege preserved from Original Sin. Scotus was the first School-Man that held it, and maintained it in his Disputes, but met with great Opposition in this point, both in the Schools, and Church, and tho' it got ground a little by time, yet it was a Subject of Contest among the Learned till it was fully determin∣ed in the Council of Basil, Anno 1439, in which it was Decreed thus, Hitherto a difficult Question hath been made touching the Conception of the Glorious Virgin; We having seen, and diligently examined the Reasons, do define and declare, That the Doctrine which teaches her never to have been Actually subject to Original Sin, but always free from it, and from all Actual Sin, is to be received and approved, as the most Catholick Doctrine, and it shall not be lawful for any to teach the contrary. This Decree hath been confirmed by Pope Sixtus the IV, and since by the Council of Trent, so that it is now become an Article of Faith in the Roman Church, unless it be with the Dominicans, who are Hereticks in this point. And from the Roman Forge it may be reasonably supposed, that this Book came, and perhaps from the Franciscans, who are the most Zealous Patrons of her Immaculate Conception.]
• * 1.4.1

  Aug de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 18. Amb. conc. 6. in Ps. 118. Chrys. Hom. 4•• in Matt. Chrys. Hom. 20. in Joan. Lu. 1. 47. Scot. in 3 dist. 4. q. 1.
• * 1.4.2

  Conc. Basil. Sessio. 36.